NEB has a loss to an unranked team while UCLA has a loss to a ranked team.
UCLA has a win against a ranked team while NEB has beaten Idaho.

JAJAJAJA

facepalm.jpg

You do realize NEB has played games and won since their lost and that UCLA just lost this weekend? Of course UCLA was going to drop. Nebraska lost on the road - UCLA was unranked at the time - Nebraska dropped as a result, as they should have, they have since won and risen back up in the rankings. UCLA just lost at home - Oregon State was unranked at the time - UCLA dropped as a result, as they should have. UCLA got ranked for beating Nebraska. Oregon State got ranked for beating UCLA. Oregon State was NOT ranked when they beat UCLA.

You don't base it off when they played. It's what they are now. Otherwise ULM should have been ranked for beating the #8 team in the country. The reason they aren't is because ARK isn't actually that good.

No. Oregon State wasn't ranked last week when they beat UCLA. What, the pollsters were supposed to anticipate/guess that Oregon State would be ranked in the next poll and thus shouldn't drop UCLA at all? Is that what you are saying? If so, that is absurd.

No. What? You just don't put NEB over a team who beat them.

This list has UCLA ranked below a team who they beat despite being beat by a ranked team.

NEB lost to an unranked team and has no ranked team wins. Why are they above UCLA?

UCLA has a better win and a better loss and their win was H2H. 0 reason NEB should be ahead of UCLA._________________Sig bet

NEB has a loss to an unranked team while UCLA has a loss to a ranked team.
UCLA has a win against a ranked team while NEB has beaten Idaho.

JAJAJAJA

facepalm.jpg

You do realize NEB has played games and won since their lost and that UCLA just lost this weekend? Of course UCLA was going to drop. Nebraska lost on the road - UCLA was unranked at the time - Nebraska dropped as a result, as they should have, they have since won and risen back up in the rankings. UCLA just lost at home - Oregon State was unranked at the time - UCLA dropped as a result, as they should have. UCLA got ranked for beating Nebraska. Oregon State got ranked for beating UCLA. Oregon State was NOT ranked when they beat UCLA.

You don't base it off when they played. It's what they are now. Otherwise ULM should have been ranked for beating the #8 team in the country. The reason they aren't is because ARK isn't actually that good.

No. Oregon State wasn't ranked last week when they beat UCLA. What, the pollsters were supposed to anticipate/guess that Oregon State would be ranked in the next poll and thus shouldn't drop UCLA at all? Is that what you are saying? If so, that is absurd.

No. What? You just don't put NEB over a team who beat them.

This list has UCLA ranked below a team who they beat despite being beat by a ranked team.

NEB lost to an unranked team and has no ranked team wins. Why are they above UCLA?

UCLA has a better win and a better loss and their win was H2H. 0 reason NEB should be ahead of UCLA.

You're missing his point. The polls are fluid. UCLA lost to an unranked team at the time that is now ranked in the same poll that UCLA is no longer ranked in. Nebraska lost to an unranked team that was ranked the following week and is now unranked again. We won't actually know how many wins vs ranked teams a particular team has until the end of the season when the movement stops.

Also, the mantra is if you lose, to lose early. When you lose, you drop. When you win consistently you move up. Nebraska lost earlier than UCLA who lost this week. Therefore UCLA drops and Nebraska moves up. If UCLA keeps winning they'll move up again, if they lose they'll keep dropping. Same with Nebraska and every other team. If you think UCLA is the first team to win a head to head matchup and be ranked lower than the team they beat, you're not very familiar with the polls, it happens all the time._________________

Casto wrote:

He's like Cole Trickle in Days of Thunder... If he can ever just harness it all, at the same time; there's no stopping him.

You're missing his point. The polls are fluid. UCLA lost to an unranked team at the time that is now ranked in the same poll that UCLA is no longer ranked in. Nebraska lost to an unranked team that was ranked the following week and is now unranked again. We won't actually know how many wins vs ranked teams a particular team has until the end of the season when the movement stops.

Teh point is terrible. They have a lesser win and lesser loss but are lower. I don't mind if neither are ranked. There is no reason they should be ranked higher than a team with better wins and losses. What they were the previous week means nothing. Unless you think ULM really beat the #8 team in the country it is moot. Unless you think APP State beat the #1 team in the country... Fact is UM wasn't the best team. Therefore they shouldn't get credit for beating the #1 team.

cp0k2 wrote:

Also, the mantra is if you lose, to lose early. When you lose, you drop. When you win consistently you move up. Nebraska lost earlier than UCLA who lost this week. Therefore UCLA drops and Nebraska moves up. If UCLA keeps winning they'll move up again, if they lose they'll keep dropping. Same with Nebraska and every other team. If you think UCLA is the first team to win a head to head matchup and be ranked lower than the team they beat, you're not very familiar with the polls, it happens all the time.

I don't care what trendss are. The trend used to be woman were men's sex slaves and autistic's were killed at birth. It's called progressing._________________Sig bet

NEB has a loss to an unranked team while UCLA has a loss to a ranked team.
UCLA has a win against a ranked team while NEB has beaten Idaho.

JAJAJAJA

facepalm.jpg

You do realize NEB has played games and won since their lost and that UCLA just lost this weekend? Of course UCLA was going to drop. Nebraska lost on the road - UCLA was unranked at the time - Nebraska dropped as a result, as they should have, they have since won and risen back up in the rankings. UCLA just lost at home - Oregon State was unranked at the time - UCLA dropped as a result, as they should have. UCLA got ranked for beating Nebraska. Oregon State got ranked for beating UCLA. Oregon State was NOT ranked when they beat UCLA.

You don't base it off when they played. It's what they are now. Otherwise ULM should have been ranked for beating the #8 team in the country. The reason they aren't is because ARK isn't actually that good.

No. Oregon State wasn't ranked last week when they beat UCLA. What, the pollsters were supposed to anticipate/guess that Oregon State would be ranked in the next poll and thus shouldn't drop UCLA at all? Is that what you are saying? If so, that is absurd.

No. What? You just don't put NEB over a team who beat them.

This list has UCLA ranked below a team who they beat despite being beat by a ranked team.

NEB lost to an unranked team and has no ranked team wins. Why are they above UCLA?

UCLA has a better win and a better loss and their win was H2H. 0 reason NEB should be ahead of UCLA.

You're missing his point. The polls are fluid. UCLA lost to an unranked team at the time that is now ranked in the same poll that UCLA is no longer ranked in. Nebraska lost to an unranked team that was ranked the following week and is now unranked again. We won't actually know how many wins vs ranked teams a particular team has until the end of the season when the movement stops.

Also, the mantra is if you lose, to lose early. When you lose, you drop. When you win consistently you move up. Nebraska lost earlier than UCLA who lost this week. Therefore UCLA drops and Nebraska moves up. If UCLA keeps winning they'll move up again, if they lose they'll keep dropping. Same with Nebraska and every other team. If you think UCLA is the first team to win a head to head matchup and be ranked lower than the team they beat, you're not very familiar with the polls, it happens all the time.

Basically this.

I don't see whats hard to get.

UCLA lost to Oregon State who was unranked at the time. Oregon State didn't get ranked until after the game and the votes were all tallied up. What, when votes were tallied and Oregon State was going to be ranked, should I have asked everyone else where UCLA should have been? It's absurd.

UCLA was ranked #17, they lost AT HOME, to a team that was unranked at the time. Even now, Oregon State is only ranked #19. UCLA, just like any other team that loses, is going to drop.

Michigan lost at a neutral site to the #1 team in the nation and debuted poorly. As they should have. Michigan lost ON THE ROAD to a top 10 team and dropped out of the rankings.

Arizona lost to a top 5 team and dropped from the rankings.

UCLA is essentially the #27 team in the nation RIGHT NOW. They dropped 10 spots for losing at home to an unranked team. Even if you count Oregon State being ranked #19 now (after the fact) a 10 spot drop isn't that bad.

Nebraska dropped essentially 14 spots for losing on the road to an unranked team (at the time). UCLA debuted at #19 (just like ORST). Nebraska dropped more severely than UCLA dropped, and Nebraska lost ON THE ROAD, not AT HOME.

Wisconsin lost on the road to ORST and dropped almost 15 spots.

Oklahoma State lost to Arizona and dropped at least 14 spots.

VT lost on the road to an unranked team and dropped almost 20 spots.

Michigan lost on the road to a top 10 team and dropped over 10 spots.

Clemson lost on the road to a top 5 team and dropped 8 spots.

Oklahoma lost to a top 10 team and dropped 11 spots.

It is simple, if a team loses, they will drop. The only question becomes how far they fall and how many other teams jump them.

The rankings are not just based on H2H victories, nor should they be. If they were we would just get into a case of circular reasoning and the transitive property not working.

For the record, it's not like NEB jumped a ton, they moved up 2-3 spots, because, in part, 3 teams above them all lost and dropped below them in the rankings.

And your argument about "it's not where teams were ranked, it's about where they are ranked now" has a very easy reversal. Oregon State beat an unranked Wisconsin team and an unranked UCLA team. According to you it doesn't matter that Wisconsin or UCLA were ranked when Oregon State played them they aren't ranked now. If that's the case then Oregon State shouldn't be ranked because according to you they beat no one. Even better, according to you Nebraska should be ranked lower than UCLA (maybe not even ranked at all). If that is the case UCLA has beat an unranked NEB team, a Rice team, a winless Houston team, and lost at home to Oregon State._________________

Also, the mantra is if you lose, to lose early. When you lose, you drop. When you win consistently you move up. Nebraska lost earlier than UCLA who lost this week. Therefore UCLA drops and Nebraska moves up. If UCLA keeps winning they'll move up again, if they lose they'll keep dropping. Same with Nebraska and every other team. If you think UCLA is the first team to win a head to head matchup and be ranked lower than the team they beat, you're not very familiar with the polls, it happens all the time.

I don't care what trendss are. The trend used to be woman were men's sex slaves and autistic's were killed at birth. It's called progressing.

Comparing this to a college football poll, you have issues._________________

Casto wrote:

He's like Cole Trickle in Days of Thunder... If he can ever just harness it all, at the same time; there's no stopping him.

Joined: 07 Jan 2005Posts: 2867Location: VA, but the heart is in Athens GA

Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:53 pm Post subject:

adam9 wrote:

dawgsfan wrote:

kitsnow wrote:

adam9 wrote:

I think Tennessee wasn't in the "others receiving votes section" in preparation for our game in Athens this week. Oh we'll, hopefully we at the least compete.

The rankings look pretty fair though. Think Scar should be ahead of Stanford until they lose, but its no biggie. Also think Northwestern at 25 is fine.

Bulldogs haven't played anyone, I think Florida looked better so I think you at least cover the spread with a chance to win.

Florida looked better than Georgia? . Tennessee hasn't played anyone..oh wait, they took on that powerhouse Akron, 23-23 into the 4th quarter wasn't it?

UGA 35 Tenn 13

Lol. I love when we get counted out before the game.

Anyways your logic is that you will get blown out by Scar then right? Missou took UGA into the late third before it got cracked open when Scar got up big early. You never know what will happen week to week.

I do think UGA wins my prediction
UGA- 38
Tennessee- 30

That being said we need to prove something this game, which doesn't necessarily mean we need a W.

I think Tennessee wasn't in the "others receiving votes section" in preparation for our game in Athens this week. Oh we'll, hopefully we at the least compete.

The rankings look pretty fair though. Think Scar should be ahead of Stanford until they lose, but its no biggie. Also think Northwestern at 25 is fine.

Bulldogs haven't played anyone, I think Florida looked better so I think you at least cover the spread with a chance to win.

Florida looked better than Georgia? . Tennessee hasn't played anyone..oh wait, they took on that powerhouse Akron, 23-23 into the 4th quarter wasn't it?

UGA 35 Tenn 13

Lol. I love when we get counted out before the game.

Anyways your logic is that you will get blown out by Scar then right? Missou took UGA into the late third before it got cracked open when Scar got up big early. You never know what will happen week to week.

I do think UGA wins my prediction
UGA- 38
Tennessee- 30

That being said we need to prove something this game, which doesn't necessarily mean we need a W.

it would take an act of god for Tenn to put up 30 on UGAs D

agreed...
when do you get ogletree and co. back?_________________Go Pack Go...
#Unconquered

You can't necessarily say that about UGAs defense. They are good but one or two TOs and instead of scoring 30 our offense would have to score 16 or 20. You guys do have a strong defense though, just hope your CBs are fast. We see 1 on 1 coverage and we run streaks. UF did a good job containing it though..._________________

Joined: 07 Jan 2005Posts: 2867Location: VA, but the heart is in Athens GA

Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:04 am Post subject:

adam9 wrote:

You can't necessarily say that about UGAs defense. They are good but one or two TOs and instead of scoring 30 our offense would have to score 16 or 20. You guys do have a strong defense though, just hope your CBs are fast. We see 1 on 1 coverage and we run streaks. UF did a good job containing it though...

didn't say you couldn't get to 30 through randomness ... said it wouldn't happen straight up on our D.

It is simple, if a team loses, they will drop. The only question becomes how far they fall and how many other teams jump them.

The rankings are not just based on H2H victories, nor should they be. If they were we would just get into a case of circular reasoning and the transitive property not working.

For the record, it's not like NEB jumped a ton, they moved up 2-3 spots, because, in part, 3 teams above them all lost and dropped below them in the rankings.

And your argument about "it's not where teams were ranked, it's about where they are ranked now" has a very easy reversal. Oregon State beat an unranked Wisconsin team and an unranked UCLA team. According to you it doesn't matter that Wisconsin or UCLA were ranked when Oregon State played them they aren't ranked now. If that's the case then Oregon State shouldn't be ranked because according to you they beat no one. Even better, according to you Nebraska should be ranked lower than UCLA (maybe not even ranked at all). If that is the case UCLA has beat an unranked NEB team, a Rice team, a winless Houston team, and lost at home to Oregon State.

I'm not saying OrSU beat a ranked team. They haven't. All those other teams are not higher than a team they beat are they? Is Wisconsin above OrSU? Is OK above KSU? Is Clemson above FSU? Is Zona above Oregon? Is OkSU above Zona?

"NO" to all. So why is NEB higher than UCLA?

Again basing it off a team when they played is dumb. Otherwise Stanford should be #2 or #1 as they beat a #2 team in country which is the best win in the country. Then add on the fact none of their other opponents have lost a game besides to Stanford.

Do you really wanna credit Zona for beating a top 20 team? I don;t because OkSu wasn't a top 20 team.

Again I can see why UCLA would drop. I just don't see how a team they beat and would be favored to beat again is above them with a lesser loss and lesser wins. The SOS isn't as good, their record is the same and they lost H2H._________________Sig bet